more on this theme | more from this thinker
Full Idea
The usual view is that 'physical possibilities' are a natural subset of the 'metaphysical possibilities', which in turn are a subset of the 'logical possibilities'.
Gist of Idea
Physical possibility is part of metaphysical possibility which is part of logical possibility
Source
Adolph Rami (Essential vs Accidental Properties [2008], §1)
Book Ref
'Stanford Online Encyclopaedia of Philosophy', ed/tr. Stanford University [plato.stanford.edu], p.4
A Reaction
[She cites Fine 2002 for an opposing view] I prefer 'natural' to 'physical', leaving it open where the borders of the natural lie. I take 'metaphysical' possibility to be 'in all naturally possible worlds'. So is a round square a logical possibility?
10938 | The extremes of essentialism are that all properties are essential, or only very trivial ones [Rami] |
10934 | Unlosable properties are not the same as essential properties [Rami] |
10933 | Physical possibility is part of metaphysical possibility which is part of logical possibility [Rami] |
10932 | If it is possible 'for all I know' then it is 'epistemically possible' [Rami] |
10939 | 'Sortal essentialism' says being a particular kind is what is essential [Rami] |
10940 | An 'individual essence' is possessed uniquely by a particular object [Rami] |